I'm another who has met quite a few mellow pot-smokers (some years back, in states other than this one) and plenty of belligerent drunks (over the years). Good illustration, thefitzvh; thanks.
I don't smoke weed because
I don't want to -- a reason that doesn't get much publicity -- and because I wouldn't be willing to deal with the legal consequences even if I otherwise did want to. Furthermore, I'm about to quit cigarettes because they hurt me physically; I'll be damned if I'll start smoking something else. I speak only for myself and my body.
On prohibition, I'm with Justin:
There is no functional difference between the arguments in favor of banning drugs and banning guns.
How much is too much? In driver's training, long ago, they gave us data on tests of people's reaction times and such. The conclusion was that you can't have
any before your body and mind respond to the presence of the drug -- in that case, it was alcohol. That's the source of my rule: the specific rate of degradation in judgment be damned; I won't touch firearms at all if I have ANY alcohol in my system, nor did I touch firearms when I was on meds under surgeon's orders after a tendon repair a few years back. I don't have the same policy for caffeine or nicotine.
My emphasis is a little different than JohnKSa's
A person has no business doing anything that significantly impairs judgement while they have access to firearms.
I won't touch firearms when I've consumed any quantity of a thing that can impair judgment. The difference is real, but very slight in practice, for me. joab, I agree with your comment about "the gateway crowd."
DougCxx, thanks for that illustration, too. When I was young and stupid, I rode in cars at least once with each of those types. Saw the same behavior. Drunks are out there killing people.